April 1, 2007 3:33 Research Publishing : IJAS Volume 4: Issue 10: Year 2011: ONT253

International Journal of Arts & Sciences,

CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934 :: 4(10):9–22 (2011)
Copyright c 2011 by InternationalJournal.org

A NEW LEARNER-CENTERED LESSON PLAN IN TEACHING

GRAMMAR TO ESL/EFL LEARNERS

Afsaneh Amini

Dar Al-Hekma College, Saudi Arabia

Teaching English to ESL/EFL learners is not only teaching the linguistic aspect of language,
but it is also teaching discourse and communicative aspects of language. Focusing on these
multi-aspects, this paper introduces a new learner-centered lesson plan in teaching and
learning grammar. No matter if the instructor is teaching grammar to ESL or EFL learners,
s/he starts with Pre-phase including two sub-phases of warming up and reviewing. In any
developmental order that best matches his/her students’ needs, s/he then proceeds with Phase
I: Linguistic Competence, Phase II: Discourse Competence, Phase III: Communicative
Competence, and Phase IV: Feedback and Evaluation. Each phase comprises diverse
activities, strategies, techniques, and/or methods varying in cognitive complexity. The
developmental progress of phases, degree of emphasis in each phase, and selection of the
methodology and resources depend mainly on the needs analysis of learners and their
preferences. Finally, concluding remarks and implications are presented.

Keywords: ESL, EFL, Teaching grammar, Learner-centered approach.

INTRODUCTION

The learner-centered approach is a new approach in teaching and learning advocated in higher
education since three decades ago (Blumberg, 2004, 2008; Felder & Brent, 1996; McCombs &
Whistler, 1997; Nunan, 1988a; Pillay, 2002; Weimer, 2002). The approach is rooted in the
learning theories of constructivism which is based on the perception that learners have the ability
to construct knowledge and generate meaning for themselves (e.g., Glasersfeld, 1989).To social
constructivists, students are active constructors and architects of their own building ideas and
knowledge and, thus, not only does the ownership of learning reside with them, but also
sustaining motivation depend on how much they are confident in using their potential to learn
(Glasersfeld, 1989). To this end, the instructor has to let learners be in charge of their own
learning, as his/her role has changed from an instructor to a facilitator (e.g., Bausersfeld, 1995;
Dwyer, Ringstaff, & Sandholtz, 1991; Tuder, 1996; Weimer, 2002).
In the learner-centered approach, no matter if the instructor is teaching a content course, a
research course, a writing course, a vocabulary course, a grammar course, or other courses, s/he
mainly acts as a facilitator. Being a facilitator and not a teacher requires a totally different set of
skills and responsibilities on the part of both the teacher and students (e.g., Cano, 2003; Weimer,
2002). As cases to the point are: a facilitator supports while a teacher lectures, a facilitator
provides guidelines while a teacher provides answers, and a facilitator orients a dialogue while a
teacher presents a monologue (e.g., see Cano, 2003; Rhodes, 1999). In a similar line of thoughts,

9
April 1, 2007 3:33 Research Publishing : IJAS Volume 4: Issue 10: Year 2011: ONT253

10 Afsaneh Amini

Weimer (2002) indicates that the job of a teacher is to create a dynamic learning environment
with available options to increase students’ engagement and motivation.
The gap between theory and practice as one of the main problems of the teacher-centered
system addressed by Lawton (1973:7-8, quoted in Nunan 1988a): “Students leaving college and
entering schools are sometimes advised by practicing teachers to ‘forget all that theory and get
on with the real teaching’...” In the Middle East and Asia, the author has also experienced that in
the instructor-centered approach to teaching and learning, university education loads students
with a lot of information, policies, and rules and prepare them little for life. When university
students graduate, they have gained little experience of life, interpersonal skills, social skills,
time management skills, job management skills, etc. This may be due to the fact that students are
given few meaningful opportunities to practice and experience what they need most while they
are spending the best years of their life in university. In addition, research shows that not
necessarily students always learn what teachers teach (Allwright, 1986; Burton & Nunan, 1986;
references cited in Nunan, 1988a). Obviously, the content of a course needs to be tailored to
student needs. As Weimer (2002) indicates, the relevance of content to the needs of learners is
important to be considered to produce intrinsically motivated learners. Weimer further states that
various policies that we establish in our classes do not bring about learners who are motivated,
responsible, and intellectually grown-up, as these policies foster extrinsic motivation in students
rather than intrinsic one. To efficiently manage the learning situation, she proposes to have
additional approaches besides rules and policies.
In the learner-centered approach to teaching and learning, it is a necessity to equip the
learning process with meaningful activities, strategies, techniques, and/or methods so that the
ground for ‘intrinsic motivation and motivators’ is created, and learners are encouraged to
practice what they need for their current and future endeavors. This is in line with Weimer’s
(2002) thoughts that there is a shift of focus in the function of content from ‘covering’ content to
‘using’ content in the sense that the content of the course needs to be linked to meaningful skills,
strategies, techniques, and approaches to foster the meta-cognitive ability of learners, among
others.

INITIAL SETUPS FOR THE LEARNER-CENTERED APPROACH

The initial setups for a learner-centered class consist of: (a) holding an introductory training, (b)
knowing learners, (c) grouping of students, and (d) establishing negotiating rules and policies.

INTRODUCTORY TRAINING

In a learner-centered class, students need to take responsibility not only for their own learning
but also for their peers (e.g., see Cano, 2003; Tuder, 1996; Weimer, 2002). Thus, the students
need to involve actively in the learning process: raise a question, solve a problem, think
analytically, and learn cooperatively. This is in a sharp contrast with the instructor-centered
approach where students have a passive role. This shift in the responsibility requires that students
take an introductory training in the form of a workshop, a short training course, or a long training
course depending on the cognitive and meta-cognitive abilities of students and their level of
functioning, among others.
The introductory training to the learner-centered approach should encompass the following
topics: (a) collaborative learning, (b) observation skills, (c) analytical skills, (d) problem solving
April 1, 2007 3:33 Research Publishing : IJAS Volume 4: Issue 10: Year 2011: ONT253

A New Learner-Centered Lesson Plan in Teaching Grammar to ESL/EFL Learners 11

skills, (e) decision making skills, (f) negotiating skills (g) interpersonal skills, (h) evaluating self,
(i) evaluating peers, (j) listening attentively, (k) speaking understandably, (l) speaking
appropriately, (m) behaving appropriately, (n) thinking positively, (o) controlling emotions, (p)
responsibility in learning, (q) responsibility in life, (r) life-long learning, (s) updating self-
knowledge, (t) updating self in using technology, and so on (see Amini, in progress; Cooper,
1990; Rau & Heyl, 1990; Slavin, 1980).

KNOWING LEARNERS

In the student-centered approach, the instructor needs to know his/her students in all aspects of
their realization as much as possible. The instructor acts as a facilitator, an advisor, a consultant,
a mentor, a supporter, a contributor, and/or a negotiator, but certainly not as an instructor in the
traditional meaning of it. Knowing students means knowing them not only in their language
skills but also in their brain dominance (for the brain dominance see, e.g., Allmen, 2009;
Hannaford, 1997; Sperry, 1984; Vitale, 1982, 1986), attitude (e.g., see Smith, 1971), aptitude,
intelligence (e.g., see Sattler, 1982), personality, dreams, goals, hobbies, interests, style of
learning (e.g., see Honey & Mumford, 2006; Lawarence, 1997), educational background, family
background, ethnic background, health status, etc. This links up with social constructivism that
considers each learner as a unique and multidimensional individual, in addition to the importance
given to his/her culture and background in the learning process (e.g., see Stahl, 1992; Wertsch,
1998). No doubt, the more the instructor knows his/her students, the better s/he is in a position to
tailor a variety of activities, strategies, and techniques to suit them best.

GROUPING OF LEARNERS

The traditional sitting in rows no longer exists in the learner-centered approach. It is very
important to group students based on certain criteria and assign each group a name to facilitate
communication. For example, a class of 30 students can be divided into 5 groups, each of which
is allocated a name while considering students’ preferences, in the first place. To facilitate
further the communication, the individual students in each group can be assigned a numerical ID,
starting with 1 as the ID for the head of the group and continuing to other numbers up to 6, as
there are six students in each group. The identical IDs are differentiated by adding their group’s
name to the ID number.
The grouping of students can be managed based on: (a) friendship, (b) academic skills, (c)
cognitive skills, (d) meta-cognitive skills, (e) other skills, (f) field of study, (g) style of learning,
(h) brain dominance, (i) cultural background, and/or (i) a hybrid combination of two or more
features/characteristics. In choosing the grouping criteria, the students’ preferences are important
to be considered (see also Collier, 1980; Connery, 1988; Fiechtner & Davis, 1992; Smith, 1986).

ESTABLISHING NEGOTIATING RULES AND POLICIES

Unlike the teacher-centered approach, in the learner-centered approach, rules and policies are
negotiated with students and finalized according to their preferences. These negotiating rules and
policies include but not limited to: (a) self-working rules, (b) pair-working rules, (c) group-
working rules, (d) assessment rules, and (e) class management rules. As an illustration, after
negotiation among students as well as dialogue between students and the facilitator, the deadline
April 1, 2007 3:33 Research Publishing : IJAS Volume 4: Issue 10: Year 2011: ONT253

12 Afsaneh Amini

for group project is determined; it is also specified what action should be taken if the deadline is
not met. Once the decisions have negotiated and made, the instructor needs to be consistent in
the administration of rules and policies (Weimer, 2002).

GRAMMAR TEACHING: A BLENDED MODEL

The situation of grammar teaching often follows two extremes: ‘overt’ teaching of grammar and
‘no overt’ teaching of grammar at all (For the history and current grammar instruction, see, e.g.,
Ellis, 2002; Hinkel & Fotos, 2002). The overt-grammar teaching focuses on grammar as a set of
forms and rules. The underlying idea is that communicative language teaching is inadequate in
developing in learners high levels of accuracy and proficiency (See, e.g., Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei,
& Thurrell, 1997; Ellis, 1966, 1997, 2002), and it may result in the production of fossilized
and/or pidginized forms of language (See, e.g., Celce-Muricia & Hilles, 1988; Skehan, 1996). On
the other hand, the ‘no-overt’ teaching of grammar ignores the formal teaching of grammar. The
underlying notion is that L2 learning is similar to L1 acquisition and, thus, learners do not need
the formal instruction of grammar, as they learn it naturally based on exposure to and experience
with L2 (Krashen, 1981, 1993; Schwartz, 1993). However, a number of professionals (e.g., Ellis,
1996, 1997) point out that grammar learning enhances communication, and an advanced level of
language competence is required for spoken and written academic and professional
communications.
The model of teaching grammar that the author proposes here is a blended model merging
the above extremes; it mainly has two versions: Bottom-up Processing Model and Top-down
Processing Model. In the bottom-up processing model, the linguistic competence is developed
into discourse competence and communicative competence (See the lesson plan that follows.).
This model would be appropriate, e.g., for rule-based learners (See, e.g., Amini, in progress
Dunn & Dunn (1978); Sprenger (2003). On the other hand, the top-down processing model
begins with communicative competence and is followed by discourse and linguistic
competences. Holistic learners (among others) would benefit from this model (ibid.). It should be
noted that the selection of the model does not depend on the program itself, that is, if it is an ESL
or EFL program; it is mainly dependant on the learner needs and their preferences.

LEARNER-CENTERED LESSON PLAN FOR TEACHING

AND LEARNING GRAMMAR

In the learner-centered approach to teaching and learning grammar, the lesson plan consists of a
set of recursive phases through which students not only gain linguistic competence but also
discourse and communicative competences through useful activities pertinent to their life,
interest, as well as current and future endeavors.
In each phase of the grammar acquisition process, students generate and/or the facilitator
introduces a series of activities, strategies, techniques, and/or methods. The facilitator does not
go closely through these pedagogical resources; it is the responsibility of students to internalize
them and connect them to other meaningful experiences. The students are in charge of their own
learning and the facilitator guide them throughout the grammar learning process. Before going
through the phases of the grammar lesson plan, the objectives of grammar pedagogy need to be
specified.
April 1, 2007 3:33 Research Publishing : IJAS Volume 4: Issue 10: Year 2011: ONT253

A New Learner-Centered Lesson Plan in Teaching Grammar to ESL/EFL Learners 13

OBJECTIVES

The first essential in designing a lesson plan is to specify objectives, that is, measurably
observable learning outcomes that students should achieve by the end of the grammar
competency process. Students make significant decisions about what learning outcomes should
be attained. As Nunan (1988a:5) indicates, in a learner-centered curriculum, “the selection of
content and objectives is … something which is shaped and refined during the initial stages of a
learning arrangement rather than being completely pre-determined.” For example, depending on
their needs and preferences, students may accomplish the following objectives. It should be
noted that, the degree of emphasis on each objective is different from a learner to another. This is
especially true in non-homogeneous classes including students with mixed skills, abilities, and
characteristics.
a) To know the form of the grammar point
b) To know the meaning of the grammar point
c) To apply the grammar point in text
d) To use the grammar point in communication
In what follows, we go through phases of a learner-centered lesson plan for developing grammar,
commencing with the pre-phase and proceeding with other phases including linguistic
competence, discourse competence, communicative competence, as well as feedback and
evaluation. As mentioned before, the phases of the lesson plan do not have a fixed order: the
learner needs and preferences are main decisive factors in the logical development of phases.

PRE-PHASE: WARMING UP AND REVIEWING

The pre-phase consists of two sub-phases: warming up and reviewing of prior knowledge and
experience. The purpose of warming up is to generate a feeling of ‘being at home’ in students so
that they absorb the input more efficiently and participate in class more willingly. Generating
such a feeling is not difficult. It can be initiated with warm greetings and go forward with such
activities as poetry, drama, games, jokes, some chunks of L1, etc. depending, e.g., on the age of
students and their interests (See Rickey, 2011 for other techniques in creating a warm class
atmosphere.) After warming up, students are called for incorporating their past lesson,
knowledge, and experience into the present lesson, knowledge, and experience.

PHASE I: LINGUISTIC COMPETENCE: SENTENTIAL CONTEXT

This phase comprises two sub-phases: syntactic focus and semantic focus. The syntactic focus
concerns the form of grammar including the spelling, pronunciation, and pattern of the grammar
point in question. The product of this phase is parallel to ‘consciousness raising’ of some
researchers (e.g., Schmidt, 1990, 1993; Sharwood Smith 1981, 1993) ) in that grammar
knowledge is developed in learners. However, as learners are in charge of their own learning, the
traditional instruction is reduced to mini-instruction, that is, a short introduction or presentation
by the facilitator.
The techniques, strategies, and activities used in this phase include but not limited to the
following resources generated by students and/or introduced by the facilitator (For
exemplification, e.g., see Amini, in progress; Bluedorn, 2004; Celce-Murcia, Brinton, &
April 1, 2007 3:33 Research Publishing : IJAS Volume 4: Issue 10: Year 2011: ONT253

14 Afsaneh Amini

Goodwin, 1996; Celce-Murcia & Hilles, 1988; Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999; Ripple,
2009; Timberlake, n.d.). It should be noted that the pedagogical resources ‘a-d’ can be used for
teaching spelling, pronunciation, and the rule while the resources ‘e-j’, ‘k-l’, and ‘m-p’ are
applied for practicing spelling, pronunciation, and the rule, respectively.

a) Facilitator’s mini- presentation/mini-lecture

b) Students’ (mini-) presentations/lectures
c) Invited speaker’s (mini-) presentation/lecture
d) Using a video clip/an audio clip
e) Dictation
f) Phonic strategy
g) Phonological strategy
h) Phonemic strategy
i) Phoneme-grapheme strategy
j) Phoneme-grapheme strategy
k) Grapheme-phoneme strategy
l) Repetition
m) Mechanical drills
n) Sentence editing
o) Sentence completion for grammar
p) Sentence grammaticality Judgment: Correct/Incorrect
The semantic focus concerns the meaning of the grammar point in question. How do students
internalize the meaning of grammar point? Below are some pedagogical techniques and
resources (For illustration, e.g., see Amini, in progress; Celce-Murcia & Hilles, 1988; Celce-
Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999; Timberlake, n.d.):

a) Facilitator mini-presentation/mini-lecture
b) Students’ (mini-) presentations/lectures
c) Invited speaker’s (mini-) lecture/presentation
d) Using a video and/or an audio clip
e) Using L1
f) Meaningful drills
g) Sentence completion for meaning
h) Using realia
i) Using pictures
j) Using objects
k) Listen and draw
l) Listen and physically respond
m) Listen and color
n) Listen and manipulate
o) Yes/No questions: Listen and say ‘yes/No’
p) WH questions: Listen and answer in a single word
April 1, 2007 3:33 Research Publishing : IJAS Volume 4: Issue 10: Year 2011: ONT253

A New Learner-Centered Lesson Plan in Teaching Grammar to ESL/EFL Learners 15

PHASE II: DISCOURSE COMPETENCE: WRITTEN LANGUAGE IN TEXT

In this phase, students apply the grammar point beyond the sentence level in meaningful text of
their interests. More specifically, discourse competence examines the grammar point in the
comprehension and production of a written text of one paragraph or more, as well those of
different genres. Using grammar in discourse allows learners to test, modify, and establish their
linguistic knowledge gained in Phase I. It should be noted that the notion of ‘discourse
competence’ only applies to written discourse and, thus, is different from the available literature
(e.g., Biber, 1988; Carter & McCarthy , 1997; Celce Murcia & Olshtain, 2000, Halliday, 1973;
McCarthy, 1991) in which both spoken and written discourse are referred to as discourse
analysis. It should be noted that spoken discourse is included in the next phase, i.e.,
communicative competence.
The methods, techniques, strategies, and/or activities used in this phase include but not
limited to the following pedagogical resources introduced by the facilitator or generated by
learners (for exemplification, e.g., see Amini, in progress; Allen & Mascolini, 1997; Celce-
Murcia & Hilles, 1988, Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999; Gillett, Hammond, & Martala,
2009; Langan, 2007)

a) Free writing
b) Text completion (cloze)
c) Text editing
d) Solving/constructing a puzzle
e) Reading/constructing a game
f) Reading/writing a poem
g) Reading/writing a conversation/dialogue
h) Reading/writing a story, fiction, or narrative
i) Reading/composing a paragraph/an essay
j) Reading/writing a piece of newspaper
k) Reading/writing a journal
l) Reading/writing a CV
m) Reading/writing a recipe
n) Reading/composing a graph, chart, table, or schedule
o) Summarizing/paraphrasing a text

PHASE III: COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE: SPOKEN LANGUAGE

In this phase, students use the grammar points in verbal communications. Using grammar in the
spoken form of language provides the students with meaningful opportunities to establish further
their linguistic and discourse knowledge gained in Phases I and II. Depending on the learning
situation, the grammar point may be used first in communicative drills; it may then be applied in
spoken discourse, meaningful communicative tasks, as well as socio-cultural situations related to
the student life, culture, current study, future endeavor, etc. Randomly selected communicative
drills, pieces of spoken discourse, tasks, and situations for the purpose of just ‘exposure’ are not
encouraged; they need to be carefully designed and proposed mainly based on the learner needs
April 1, 2007 3:33 Research Publishing : IJAS Volume 4: Issue 10: Year 2011: ONT253

16 Afsaneh Amini

and preferences. As Richards (2002) points out, communicative tasks need to be focused in
order to lead to effective grammar acquisition.
The following are some examples of communicative resources varying in cognitive
complexity. They are generated by students and/or introduced by the facilitator (For illustration,
e.g., see Amini, in progress; Biber, 1988; Carter & McCarthy, 1997; Celce-Murcia & Hilles,
1988; Chesler and Fox, 1966; Courtney, 1980; De Beer, 1991; Halliday, 1973; Liu, 2007; Stowe,
2004; McCarthy, 1991).

a) Using communicative drills

b) Holding an interview/a conversation
c) Describing a game verbally
d) Solving a problem
e) Playing a game
f) Playing a skit
g) Playing a drama
h) Playing a role
i) Singing a song
j) Operating an equipment
k) Cooking based on a recipe
l) Reserving a hotel by phone
m) Reserving a ticket on-line
n) Applying for a job
o) Telling a joke, story, anecdote, event, etc.
p) Saying a poem, proverb, surprising fact, etc.
q) Summarizing/paraphrasing a text verbally
r) Group/class discussion: Arguing against/in favor of
s) Consulting: Giving advice: Using advantages, disadvantages, etc.
t) Analysing/Comparing/Contrasting: Using different views, opinions, perspectives, etc.

PHASE IV: FEEDBACK AND EVALUATION

Obviously, changing in the practice of teaching requires changing in the evaluation and vice
versa. According to Shawa and Dawsett (1986, cited in Nunan, 1988a:7), “traditionally,
evaluation occurs at the final stage in the curriculum process. In the model proposed here
[learner-centered curriculum], however, evaluation is parallel with other curriculum activities
and may occur at various times during the planning and implementation phases, as well as during
a specified evaluation phase ...” In a similar line, Walvoord (2004) indicates that student learning
is affected by changes in assessment methods.
The feedback and evaluation phase consist of two sub-phases: bidirectional feedback and
evaluation.
April 1, 2007 3:33 Research Publishing : IJAS Volume 4: Issue 10: Year 2011: ONT253

A New Learner-Centered Lesson Plan in Teaching Grammar to ESL/EFL Learners 17

BIDIRECTIONAL FEEDBACK

Throughout the grammar acquisition process, the facilitator should provide students with
continuous feedback on their language together with positive reinforcement. She also needs to be
the recipient of students’ on-going feedbacks not only on efficiency of his/her guiding role but
also on that of different activities, strategies, techniques, and methods used in the classroom.

EVALUATION

The evaluation comprises: (a) type of evaluation, (b) evaluation techniques, and (c) process
evaluation, final evaluation, and scoring techniques.

TYPE OF EVALUATION

The evaluation can be directed by the student, peer, facilitator and/or joint participants.
Depending on who is in charge, the evaluation is called differently as: student self evaluation,
peer evaluation, facilitator evaluation, hybrid evaluation of the self and peer, hybrid evaluation of
the self and facilitator, hybrid evaluation of the peer and facilitator, and hybrid evaluation of the
self, peer, and facilitator (see also Tuder, 1996; Weimer, 2002).

EVALUATION TECHNIQUES

There are two types of evaluation techniques matching the grammar learning process: normal
reflective techniques and authentic techniques. The reflective techniques include syntactic,
semantic, and discourse techniques assessing the form, meaning, and discourse aspects of
grammar point, respectively. The authentic techniques comprise pieces of spoken discourse,
meaningful communications, task-based activities, and socio-cultural situations to assess the
learners’ communicative skills.

PROCESS EVALUATION, FINAL EVALUATION, AND SCORING TECHNIQUES

In learner-centered grammar pedagogy, evaluation should happen in every stage of the learning
process and should not be left for the final stage. As Lawton (1973:14, quoted in Nunan
1988a:12) indicates, “…leaving evaluation until the final stage of curriculum process is rather
like doing military intelligence after the war is over: in other words, evaluation should occur at
every stage. This would make the curriculum model a cyclical one rather than a linear model.”
In the grammar learning process, the competence and performance of students can be
measured by two scoring techniques: normal scorning and formative scoring. In normal scoring,
the student work is given a numerical grade. The formative technique is applied when the student
is not assigned a numerical grade, but a value grade such as excellent, very good, good, etc. may
be attributed to her work. Similarly, the final evaluation of grammar acquisition can be measured
numerically and/or valuably. In both techniques, scoring can be managed by the student, peer,
facilitator, and/or joint participants (See also Tuder, 1996; Weimer, 2002).
Certainly, in each phase of the grammar acquisition process, students can be assigned numerical
and/or value grades. However, value grading may not be satisfactory by itself. As the author has
April 1, 2007 3:33 Research Publishing : IJAS Volume 4: Issue 10: Year 2011: ONT253

18 Afsaneh Amini

experienced, there exist some learners who are extrinsically motivated. For these learners
assigning a grade is the best motivation to inspire them to work. On the other hand, intrinsically-
motivated learners are truly workaholics; they love to learn and work hard regardless of the type
of reward they get. Thus considering the above learners, in the process of grammar evaluation,
both numerical scoring and value scoring should be applied (See also Weimer, 2002 for
intrinsically and extrinsically motivated learners.).

CONCLUDING REMARKS AND IMPLICATIONS

The new learner-centered lesson plan in teaching and learning grammar consists of a series of
recursive phases ordered based on the needs of students. The lesson plan may include the
bottom-up processing model in which the phases are sequentially ordered as: Pre-phase:
Warming up and reviewing, Phase I: Linguistic Competence, Phase II: Discourse Competence,
Phase III: Communicative Competence, and Phase IV: Feedback and evaluation. The bottom-up
processing model would be a better choice for rule-based learners, among others. However,
depending on the needs of learners, the lesson plan may include the top-down processing model
in which the phases are progressed as Pre-phase: Warming up and reviewing, Phase I:
Communicative Competence, Phase II: Discourse Competence, Phase III: Linguistic
Competence, and Phase IV: Feedback and evaluation. The top-down processing model would be
suitable for holistic learners, among others.
Each phase of the lesson plan comprises diverse activities, strategies, techniques, and/or
methods generated by students and/or introduced by the facilitator to suit different types of
learners. Students selectively utilize them, as they are in charge of their own learning.
Finally pertinent questions are: Is the learner-centered approach for teaching English in
general and teaching grammar in particular appropriate in EFL/ESL contexts? Apparently, the
learner-centered approach is tailored to students’ needs analysis and associated with meaningful
experiences related to their life, culture, society, as well as their current and future endeavors.
More importantly, students are closely involved in all dimensions of a course such as content,
instruction, and evaluation. Thus, such learner-centered pedagogy should be more appropriate
than the instructor-centered approach. In addition, some studies indicate advantages of the
learner-centered approach over the teacher-centered approach (See, e.g., Barraket, 2005.).
However, it is far from practice to assure that the learner-centered approach is more
advantageous than the instructor-learner approach in the educational context of countries in
which there is no reported study. Thus, the author would like to propose that in such countries
the safest pedagogical transition would be a bottom-up process planning.
The bottom-up process planning requires several steps to follow in a process going from
bottom up. In this journey of transitional planning from the teacher-centered curriculum to the
learner-centered curriculum, the initial step is to have a learner-centered committee. Second, it is
important to have control groups and experimental groups for some courses serving as pilot
studies to assess learning outcomes with regard to such variables as the number of students in
class, undergraduate students, graduate students, low-level students, advanced-level students,
young learners, old learners, etc. Third, there is a strong need to change the course syllabus from
‘content’ to ‘process’ (See, e.g., Kerr, 1968; Nunan, 1988b; Taba, 1962; Tyler, 1949). Moreover,
the professional development for faculty members in the learner-centered approach to teaching
and learning is highly recommended. Ultimately, learner-centered pedagogy should play a vital
role in the faculty evaluation.
April 1, 2007 3:33 Research Publishing : IJAS Volume 4: Issue 10: Year 2011: ONT253

A New Learner-Centered Lesson Plan in Teaching Grammar to ESL/EFL Learners 19

REFERENCES

Amini, A. (In Progress). A Learner-centered approach in teaching grammar to ESL/EFL learners.

Allmen, M. (2009). Right- vs. left-brained dominance, International Learning Cooperation.
http://www.nhcs.k12.nc.us/noble/theparentpage/articles1/104.pdf.

Barraket, J. (2005) Teaching research method using a student-centred approach.

Critical reflections on practice. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice.
http://jutlp.uow.edu.au/2005_v02_i02/barraket004.html.

Bauersfeld, H. (1995). Language games in the mathematics classroom: Their function and their effects. In P. Cobb
& H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures,
211-292. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Biber, D. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Uk, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bluedorn, H. (2004). Handy English Encoder Decoder: All the spelling and phonics rules you could ever want to
know. Trivium Pursuit Publisher.

Blumberg, P. (2004). Beginning journey toward a culture of learning centered teaching. Journal of Student Centered
Learning, 2(1), 68-80.

Blumberg, P. (2008). Developing Learner-centered teaching: A practical guide for faculty. San Fransisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Burke, A., O’Sullivan, J., O’Sullivan, J.C., Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2002). Stage by Stage: A Handbook for Using
Drama in the Second Language Classroom. Heinemann.

Cameron, J. (1995). The artist’s way: A spiritual path to higher creativity. New York: Putnam.

Cano, J. (2003). From teacher to facilitator: A new role for the teacher. Agricultural Education Magazine, 2(76).

Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (1997). Exploring Spoken English. Uk, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D.M., & Goodwin, J.W. (1996). Teaching Pronunciation: A Reference for Teachers of
English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1997). Direct approaches in L2 instruction:
A turning point in communicative language teaching? TESOL Quarterly, 31, 141–152.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Hilles, S. (1988). Techniques and resources in teaching grammar. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course (2nd
edition). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Celce-Murcia, M. & Olshtain, M. (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching: A Guide for language
teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chesler, M., & Fox, R. (1966). Role-playing methods in the classroom. Chicago: Science Research Associates.

Collier, K. G. (1980). Peer-Group learning in higher education: The development of higher-order skills. Studies in
Higher Education, 5(1), 55-62.
Connery, B. A. (1988). Group work and collaborative writing. Teaching at Davis, 14(1), 2-4. (Publication of the
Teaching Resources Center, University of California at Davis.
April 1, 2007 3:33 Research Publishing : IJAS Volume 4: Issue 10: Year 2011: ONT253

20 Afsaneh Amini

Cooper, J. (1990). Cooperative learning and college teaching: Tips from the trenches. Teaching Professor, 4(5), 1-2.

Courtney, R. (1980). The dramatic curriculum. New York: Drama Book Specialists.

De Beer, L. (1991). Filling the silences: Using interviews and forums in the writing classroom. Language Arts
Journal of Michigan, 7(1).

Dunn, R, & Dunn, K. (1978). Teaching students through their individual learning styles: A practical approach.
Reston, VA: Reston Publishing Company.

Dwyer, D., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. (1991). Changes in teachers’ beliefs and practices in technology-rich
classrooms. Educational Leadership, 48(8), 45-53.

Ellis, R. (1996). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2002). The place of grammar instruction in the second/foreign curriculum. In E. Hinkel &
S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms
(pp. 17–34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Felder, R., & Brent, R. (1996). Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction. College Teaching, 44(2),
43-47.

Fiechtner, S. B., & Davis, E. A. (1992). Why some groups fail: A survey of students’ experiences with learning
groups. In A. Goodsell, M. Maher, V. Tinto, and Associates (Eds.), Collaborative learning: A sourcebook
for higher education. University Park: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and
Assessment, Pennsylvania State University.

Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching, Synthese, 80(1), 121-140.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London, Edward Arnold.

Hannaford, C. (1997). The dominance factor: How knowing your dominant eye, ear, brain, hand, & foot can
improve your learning. Midpoint Trade Books, Inc.

Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers’ text. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hinkel, E., & Fotos., S. From Tehory to Practice: A teacher’s view. In In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New
perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 1-12). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (2006). The learning styles questionnaire: 80-item version. Maidenhead, UK: Peter
Honey Publications.

Kerr, J., ed. (1968). Changing the curriculum. London: University of London Press.

Kohn, A. (1986). No contest: The case against competition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Krashen, S. (1993). The effect of formal grammar teaching: Still peripheral. TESOL Quarterly, 27,
722–72.

Lambert, N., & McCombs, B. (2000). Introduction: Learner-centered schools and classrooms as a direction for
school reform. In N. Lambert, & B. McCombs (Eds.), How students learn, 1-15. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.

Lawrence, G. (1997). Looking at type and learning styles. Gainesville, FL; Centre for Application of Psychological
Type, Inc.
April 1, 2007 3:33 Research Publishing : IJAS Volume 4: Issue 10: Year 2011: ONT253

A New Learner-Centered Lesson Plan in Teaching Grammar to ESL/EFL Learners 21

Langan, J. (2007). College writing skills with readings. USA: McGraw Hill.
Liu, J. (2007). Process drama in second- and foreign-language classrooms. In Gerd Bräuer (Ed.), Body and
language: Intercultural learning through drama., 51-70. Westport, Connecticut & London: Ablex
Publishing. Retrieved May 20, from
http://www.european-mediaculture.org/fileadmin/bibliothek/english/liu_processdrama/n
liu_processdrama.pdf.

McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for language teachers. Cambrige: Cambridge University Press.

McCombs, B.L., & Whistler, J.S. (1997). The learner-centered classroom and school: Strategies for increasing
student motivation and achievement. In B.L. McCombs & J.S. Whistler (Eds.),
The learner-centered classroom, 63-101, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nunan, D. (1988a). Learner centred curriculum: A study in second language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Nunan, D. (1988b). Curriculum development and design. Murray Print.

Ostler, S. (1980). A survey of needs of advanced ESL students, TESOL Quarterly, 14(4), 489-502.

Pillay, H. (2002). Understanding learner-centredness: Does it consider the diverse needs of individuals? Studies in
Continuing Education, 24(1), 93-102.

Rau, W., & Heyl, B. S. (1990). Humanizing the college classrooms: Collaborative learning and social organization
among students. Teaching Sociology, 18(2), 141-155.

Richards, J.C. (2002). Accuracy and fluency revisited. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds). New perspectivies on
grammar teaching in second language classrooms. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rickey, R. (2011) How to create a friendly atmosphere in the classroom. Retrieved on Feb.5 2011, from
http://www.ehow.com/how_7920814_create-friendly-atmosphere-classroom.html.
Rippel, M. 2009. All About spelling: Levels one through four. Eagle River Publisher.

Rhodes, L.K. (1999). Choices and consequences in the renewal of teacher education, Journal of Teacher Education,
50(1), 17-25.
Sattler, J. (1982). Assessments of children’s intelligences and special abilities. Bosten: Allyn & Bacon.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11,
129-158.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206-
226.

Schwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147–163.

Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Conscious raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2, 159-168.

Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 15, 165-179.

Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38-62.

Slavin, R. F. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 315-342.

Smith, A.N. (1971). The importance of attitude in foreign language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 55(2).
April 1, 2007 3:33 Research Publishing : IJAS Volume 4: Issue 10: Year 2011: ONT253

22 Afsaneh Amini

Smith, K. A. (1986). Cooperative learning groups. In S. F. Schmoberg (Ed.), Strategies for Active Teaching and
Learning in University Classrooms. Minneapolis: Office of Educational Development Programs, University
of Minnesota.

Sperry, R.W. (1984). Consciousness, personal identity and the divided Brain. Neuropsychologia
22:611-73.

Sprenger, M. (2003). Differentiation through learning styles and memory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Stahl, R. J. (1992). A context for higher order knowledge: An information-constructivist perspective with
implications for curriculum and instruction, Part I. Journal of Structural Learning, 11(3), 189-218.

Stowe, A. (2004). Using drama to improve creative writing. National Teacher Research Panel Summary, Retrieved
on Feb. 1, 2011, from www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/ntrp/publications/stowe/

Tuder, I. (1996). Learner-centredness as language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. USA: Harcourt, Brace & world, Inc.

Tyler, R.W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University Chicago Press.

Timberlake, K. (n.d.). Using student centered Learning strategies in the chemistry classroom. Retrieved on Feb. 1,
2011, from http://www.karentimberlake.com.

Vitale, M.B. (1982). Unicorns are real: A right-brained approach to learning, Torrance, CA: Jalmar Press.

Vitale, M.B. (1986). Free flight: Celebrating your right brain. Torrance, CA: Jalmar Press.

Walvoord, B. E. (2004). Assessment clear and simple. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wertsch, J.V (1998). Vygotsky and the formation of the mind. Harvard University Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.